The two Babylons, or, The papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife : with sixty-one woodcut illustrations from Nineveh, Babylon, Egypt, Pompeii, &c
February 13, 2013
Those who worship ishtar and those who worship Mary...is there really a difference ??? How much have you PERSONALLY studied ???
Alright, some do not wish that others would read the book, and make up their own mind.
So attack the messenger, right ?
After all, Hislop had to be wrong because you want him to be ??
Of course he did use more than 200 sources, in his book ? and you have personally read each and every single one of those sources, like Hislop had to ?
And you question his facts and his reasonings, because you know both Latin and ANcient Greek like Hislop did, is that ALSO true about you ?
And so you can dispute with Hislop because your knowledge, experience and credibility are greater than his, is that right ?
The fact is that hislop quotes from traditional and historic works, written by classic Greek and Roman authors. He is only relaying to you, what they first said themselves.
But I will admit, it can hurt.
It is painful to admit the possibility that the Bible can STILL be real, authentic and true, but those who run the Vatican have motives of leisure, comfort, luxury, power and spiritual corruption.
Of course that would never happen in this day and age, never never never in the Roman Catholic Church ?
So each and every single one of those child-molesting events occuring by the THOUSANDS, in all lands and
nations currently where the Vatican has its own local franchise, those NEVER occured then did they ?
Because there is never corruption in THAT church ?
And so when they torched other Christ-followers, but who who refused to bow to the Vatican, then that was alright also ?
ANd when they confiscated the goods of those people, threw them into the street, and then forced them to pay
for the costs of the emprisonment of the father of that little house, on a trumped-up charge of heresy, that
was alright also, was it ? That was justice ? That was how Jesus would do things, is it ?
Those practices are consistent with the New Testament, are they ?
And the books that before the 1500s were NOT considered Scripture that the Vatican council suddenly decided to
ADD 12 or 14 books in the middle of the Old and New Testament, to avoid dealing with the intellectual arguments
of Calvin and Martin Luther, altering the contents of the New Testament, THAT is NOT a sign of Vatican Corruption,
then is it ?
So when the one in charge of the child-molesting scandal in Boston, was transfered to the Vatican (who was
archbishop Laud), so that he would no longer be subject to American jurisdiction, making him beyond the reach of
those who were vicimized, THAT did not occur then, did it ?
And it was not Ratzinger who made that happen then, the transfer of Laud to Vatican space, was it ? (Actually it was).
Christianity is much bigger, and God is much bigger than the Vatican and the Roman Catholic political Christianity
that still exists, even today.
But that is not to be confused with the simple and actual Christianity found in the New Testament.
Truth may be painful sometimes, but far LESS painful than trying to defend falsehoods, and doctrines that
clearly were absent at the beginning. Do your own research. The Vatican did not even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. Wanting it to be true will not make it true. Wait until you find out about lines of succession, that contradict each other, and they are each separately issued by different popes. And those lines of succession contradict each other, about which early Pope supposedly succeeded a different early pope. Those are just invented histories.
It is important to make a difference between historic Christianity, and the teachings of Rome, invented and developed either by Pagan rituals, or invented by the Vatican. Christianity stands OUTSIDE of the Vatican and its bureaucrats.
Constantine died a pagan emperor and worshipper of sol invictus (clarified in the work of Hislop).
Every hear of someone called Malachi Martin ? Did you read what he wrote about the truth of conclaves ?
At the very least the vatican is a horrible testimony to the power of God to change lives. In its current state,
the Vatican remains a badly corrupted institution, as it has been ever since it made its alliance with imperial Rome.
No one wants you to know the truth.
No one wants you to read the facts for yourself.
There is far more material, than what Hislop included in one book.
What many Catholics of Rome want is to be able to place their trust blindly into their church and hope that this will carry them to Eternal Life. That however contradicts what the New Testament teaches. Priests do not have the power
to remit sins. They never have, unless that was found in pagan systems of ancient religions.
And Reading works like those of Griesinger, or Sarpi or Dollinger, or Malachi Martin will tell you much more than you will ever learn, by believing Vatican myths.
Jerald Franklin Archer
September 22, 2011
What the Church is NOT.
The study of error fosters the successful promotion of the truth. Hislop's work in a model in and of itself, which stands purely as an example of what, if truly inspired by the Holy Ghost, one should look out for in their search for the truth. It stands alone as the classic example of the anti-Catholic sentiment that raged in the time it was written as a pamphlet in 1853, full of great historical errors and bigotry that pass for genuine scholarship. If that was not enough, it was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. He uses all of the old professorial stand-bys in order to be convincing as possible, Latin phrases and erroneous self-interpretation of Holy Scripture being the most blatant. His understanding of the religion of Babylon is altogether wrong, as is his use of scripture out of context. One who truly understands history and the Bible (and where and how it came about) clearly sees these errors, which make for a strange interest in seeing how far he will go to prove his conjectures. As the Catholic Church has, or never will be, disproved, it is safe to say, as it is promised by Christ, that the gate of Hell have not prevailed by Hislop's efforts. The enemy confuses, but is never totally victorious. Satan himself could not have done a better job of it, although I suspect he had much to do with it in co-authorship. Satan's commission will be fulfilled in payments not of coin, but of souls lost by believing that the very Church Christ Himself founded is evil in and of itself.
As to the real reason for such a production, I am not going to judge as too many factors that could be involved, but do rest assured that the effort was not a divinely inspired one. To make the Church out to be what Hislop proposes would make Christ out to be a liar and deceiver Himself. I pray that is not what he was suggesting in his theories, but rather he was simply ignorant of the truth. He is what may be considered as invincibly ignorant, and we must give him the benefit of the doubt as to his actual motives. No valid reason seems to offer a logical explanation, except that the author was certifiably mad, demonically possessed or just your typical heretic with little to do and a great deal to say.
As even manure has value in certain applications, I actually use this work as an example to those whom I evangelize in order to point out where the truth can be really found--and salvation may be truly secured. Ones own eternal salvation is too precious, so I urge a serious research effort on their part to always be cautious where they get their information. Bear in mind that Hislop was engaged in the work of helping others to attain eternal salvation and, given the beliefs that he promotes, one can see why the promotion of truth, through the correction of error is so important today.
As Hislop's sloppy scholarship and poor methodology of proving his case is much more evident today, it would be safe to say that few would believe it in today's mindset. It remains as a testimony of just how little we have changed as a society and how men think in any given time in history. The sad fact does remain that there are some who believe the work is truth, and the general argument of his suppositious conspiracy theories are still alive and well in some fundamentalist Protestant mindsets today. This is due solely to ignorance, which is actually an unacceptable excuse today, given the available information we have at any given time. It is not strange that most, if not all of those who hate or distrust the Church always know nothing about Her and the little they do "know" is so filled with error it is amazing that it could happen today.
Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. As this would certainly be the case, given the evidence that all anti-Catholic individuals present, then one may deduce that they really know nothing of Christ, for the Catholic Church is His Church, and He founded only ONE TRUE CHURCH---the Roman Catholic Church.
Other interesting historical writings in this manner include, but are not limited to :Martin Luther - On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Titus Oates - An Exact Discovery of the Mystery of Iniquity as it is now in Practice amongst the Jesuits (1679), Conyers Middleton - Letter from Rome (1729). Jack Chick stands alone today as being so ridiculous as to not even warrent any serious attention, but in order to defeat the enemy, one must study their plans and philosophies as well.